Effect of Awake Prone Positioning on Endotracheal Intubation in Patients With COVID-19 and Acute Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The efficacy and safety of prone positioning is unclear in nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of prone positioning in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, unblinded randomized clinical trial conducted at 21 hospitals in Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the US. Eligible adult patients with COVID-19 were not intubated and required oxygen (≥40%) or noninvasive ventilation. A total of 400 patients were enrolled between May 19, 2020, and May 18, 2021, and final follow-up was completed in July 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to awake prone positioning (n = 205) or usual care without prone positioning (control; n = 195). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation within 30 days of randomization. The secondary outcomes included mortality at 60 days, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days, days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 400 patients who were randomized (mean age, 57.6 years [SD, 12.83 years]; 117 [29.3%] were women), all (100%) completed the trial. In the first 4 days after randomization, the median duration of prone positioning was 4.8 h/d (IQR, 1.8 to 8.0 h/d) in the awake prone positioning group vs 0 h/d (IQR, 0 to 0 h/d) in the control group. By day 30, 70 of 205 patients (34.1%) in the prone positioning group were intubated vs 79 of 195 patients (40.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.12], P = .20; absolute difference, -6.37% [95% CI, -15.83% to 3.10%]). Prone positioning did not significantly reduce mortality at 60 days (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.40], P = .54; absolute difference, -1.15% [95% CI, -9.40% to 7.10%]) and had no significant effect on days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days or on days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days. There were no serious adverse events in either group. In the awake prone positioning group, 21 patients (10%) experienced adverse events and the most frequently reported were musculoskeletal pain or discomfort from prone positioning (13 of 205 patients [6.34%]) and desaturation (2 of 205 patients [0.98%]). There were no reported adverse events in the control group. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19, prone positioning, compared with usual care without prone positioning, did not significantly reduce endotracheal intubation at 30 days. However, the effect size for the primary study outcome was imprecise and does not exclude a clinically important benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04350723.

The cuff leak test in critically ill patients: An international survey of intensivists.

BACKGROUND: The cuff leak test (CLT) is used to assess laryngeal edema prior to extubation. There is limited evidence for its diagnostic accuracy and conflicting guidelines surrounding its use in critically ill patients who do not have risk factors for laryngeal edema. The primary study aim was to describe intensivists' beliefs, attitudes, and practice regarding the use of the CLT. METHODS: A 13-item survey was developed, pilot-tested, and subjected to clinical sensibility testing. The survey was distributed electronically through MetaClinician®. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analysis were performed to examine associations between participant demographics and survey responses. RESULTS: 1184 practicing intensivists from 17 countries in North and South America, Europe, Oceania, and Asia participated. The majority (59%) of respondents reported rarely or never perform the CLT prior to extubating patients not at high risk of laryngeal edema, which correlated with 54% of respondents reporting they believed a failed CLT did not predict reintubation. Intensivists from the Middle East were 2.4 times more likely to request a CLT compared to those from North America. Intensivists with base training in medicine or emergency medicine were more likely to request a CLT prior to extubation compared to those with base training in anesthesiology. CONCLUSION: Use of the CLT prior to extubating patients not at high risk of laryngeal edema in the intensive care unit is highly variable. Practice appears to be influenced by country of practice and base specialty training.

Scale-up and sustainability of a personalized end-of-life care intervention: a longitudinal mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Scaling-up and sustaining healthcare interventions can be challenging. Our objective was to describe how the 3 Wishes Project (3WP), a personalized end-of-life intervention, was scaled-up and sustained in an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In a longitudinal mixed-methods study from January 12,013 - December 31, 2018, dying patients and families were invited to participate if the probability of patient death was > 95% or after a decision to withdraw life support. A research team member or bedside clinician learned more about each of the patients and their family, then elicited and implemented at least 3 personalized wishes for patients and/or family members. We used a qualitative descriptive approach to analyze interviews and focus groups conducted with 25 clinicians who cared for the enrolled patients. We used descriptive statistics to summarize patient, wish, and clinician characteristics, and analyzed outcome data in quarters using Statistical Process Control charts. The primary outcome was enrollment of terminally ill patients and respective families; the secondary outcome was the number of wishes per patient; tertiary outcomes included wish features and stakeholder involvement. RESULTS: Both qualitative and quantitative analyses suggested a three-phase approach to the scale-up of this intervention during which 369 dying patients were enrolled, having 2039 terminal wishes implemented. From a research project to clinical program to an approach to practice, we documented a three-fold increase in enrolment with a five-fold increase in total wishes implemented, without a change in cost. Beginning as a study, the protocol provided structure; starting gradually enabled frontline staff to experience and recognize the value of acts of compassion for patients, families, and clinicians. The transition to a clinical program was marked by handover from the research staff to bedside staff, whereby project catalysts mentored project champions to create staff partnerships, and family engagement became more intentional. The final transition involved empowering staff to integrate the program as an approach to care, expanding it within and beyond the organization. CONCLUSIONS: The 3WP is an end-of-life intervention which was implemented as a study, scaled-up into a clinical program, and sustained by becoming integrated into practice as an approach to care.

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

Evaluation of online clinical pharmacology curriculum resources for medical students.

AIMS: To identify and evaluate clinical pharmacology (CP) online curricular (e-Learning) resources that are internationally available for medical students. METHODS: Literature searches of Medline, EMBASE and ERIC databases and an online survey of faculty members of international English language medical schools, were used to identify CP e-Learning resources. Resources that were accessible online in English and aimed to improve the quality of prescribing specific medications were then evaluated using a summary percentage score for comprehensiveness, usability and quality, and for content suitability. RESULTS: Our literature searches and survey of 252 faculty (40.7% response rate) in 219 medical schools identified 22 and 59 resources respectively. After screening and removing duplicates, 8 eligible resources remained for evaluation. Mean total score was 53% (standard deviation = 13). The Australian National Prescribing Curriculum, ranked highest with a score of 77%, based primarily on very good ratings for usability, quality and suitable content. CONCLUSION: Using a novel method and evaluation metric to identify, classify, and rate English language CP e-Learning resources, the National Prescribing Curriculum was the highest ranked open access resource. Future work is required to implement and evaluate its effectiveness on prescribing competence.

Clonidine for sedation in the critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of clonidine as a sedative in critically ill patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane trial registry. We identified RCTs that compared clonidine to any non-clonidine regimen in critically ill patients, excluding neonates, requiring mechanical ventilation. The GRADE method was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (n = 642 patients). In seven of the trials clonidine was used for adjunctive rather than stand-alone sedation. There was no difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference (MD) 0.05 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.65 to 0.75, I 2 = 86%, moderate certainty), ICU mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI = 0.51 to 1.90, I 2 = 0%, low certainty), or ICU length of stay (MD 0.04 days, 95% CI = -0.46 to 0.53, I 2 = 16%, moderate certainty), with clonidine. There was a significant reduction in the total dose of narcotics (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI = -0.50 to -0.02, I 2 = 0%, moderate certainty) with clonidine use. Clonidine was associated with increased incidence of clinically significant hypotension (RR 3.11, 95% CI = 1.64 to 5.87, I 2 = 0%, moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Until further RCTs are performed, data remains insufficient to support the routine use of clonidine as a sedative in the mechanically ventilated population. Clonidine may act as a narcotic-sparing agent, albeit with an increased risk of clinically significant hypotension.

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) should guide their use in reducing bleeding risk in the critically ill. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, clinical trials registries, and conference proceedings through November 2015 without language or publication date restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PPIs vs H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults for clinically important bleeding, overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, nosocomial pneumonia, mortality, ICU length of stay and Clostridium difficile infection were included. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess our confidence in the evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: In 19 trials enrolling 2117 patients, PPIs were more effective than H2RAs in reducing the risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR 0.39; 95 % CI 0.21, 0.71; P = 0.002; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence) and overt GI bleeding (RR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.66; P < 0.0001; I (2) = 3 %, moderate confidence). PPI use did not significantly affect risk of pneumonia (RR 1.12; 95 % CI 0.86, 1.46; P = 0.39; I (2) = 2 %, low confidence), mortality (RR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.87, 1.27; P = 0.61; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence), or ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), -0.38 days; 95 % CI -1.49, 0.74; P = 0.51; I (2) = 30 %, low confidence). No RCT reported Clostridium difficile infection. CONCLUSIONS: PPIs were superior to H2RAs in preventing clinically important and overt GI bleeding, without significantly increasing the risk of pneumonia or mortality. Their impact on Clostridium difficile infection is yet to be determined.

Use of a daily goals checklist for morning ICU rounds: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives and attitudes of ICU clinicians about use of a daily goals checklist on rounds. DESIGN: Our three data collection methods were as follows: (1) Field observations: two investigators conducted field observations to understand how and by whom the daily goals checklist was used for 80 ICU patient rounds over 6 days. (2) Document analysis: The 72 completed daily goals checklists from observed rounds were analyzed using mixed methods. (3) Interviews: With 56 clinicians, we conducted semistructured individual and focus-group interviews, analyzing transcripts using a qualitative descriptive approach and content analysis. Triangulation was achieved by a multidisciplinary investigative team using two research methods and three data sources. SETTING: Fifteen bed closed ICU in a tertiary care, university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: Medical-surgical ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Field observations: The daily goals checklist was completed for 93% of observed rounds, largely by residents (86%). The champion of the verbal review was commonly a resident (83%) or medical student (9%). Document analysis: Domains with high completion rates included ventilation, sedation, central venous access, nutrition, and various prophylactic interventions. Interviews: The daily goals checklist enhanced communication, patient care, and education. Nurses, physicians, and pharmacists endorsed its enhancement of interdisciplinary communication. It facilitated a structured, thorough, and individualized approach to patient care. The daily goals checklist helped to identify new patient care issues and sparked management discussions, especially for sedation, weaning, and medications. Residents were prominent users, finding served as a multipurpose teaching tool. CONCLUSIONS: The daily goals checklist was perceived to improve the management of critically ill patients by creating a systematic, comprehensive approach to patient care and by setting individualized daily goals. Reportedly improving interprofessional communication and practice, the daily goals checklist also enhanced patient safety and daily progress, encouraging momentum in recovery from critical illness. Daily goals checklist review prompted teaching opportunities for multidisciplinary learners on morning rounds.

Improving medication prescribing-related outcomes for vulnerable elderly in transitions on high-risk medications (IMPROVE-IT HRM): a pilot randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Seniors with recurrent hospitalizations who are taking multiple medications including high-risk medications are at particular risk for serious adverse medication events. We will assess whether an expert Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology (CPT) medication management intervention during hospitalization with follow-up post-discharge and communication with circle of care is feasible and can decrease drug therapy problems amongst this group. METHODS: The design is a pragmatic pilot randomized trial with 1:1 patient-level concealed randomization with blinded outcome assessment and data analysis. Participants will be adults 65 years and older admitted to internal medicine services for more than 2 days, who have had at least one other hospitalization in the prior year, taking five or more chronic medications including at least one high-risk medication. The CPT intervention identifies medication targets; completes consult, including priorities for improving prescribing negotiated with the patient; starts the care plan; ensures a detailed discharge medication reconciliation and circle-of-care communication; and sees the patient at least twice after hospital discharge via virtual visits to consolidate the care plan in the community. Control group receives usual care. Primary outcomes are feasibility - recruitment, retention, costs, and clinical - number of drug therapy problems improved, with secondary outcomes examining coordination of transitions in care, quality of life, and healthcare utilization and costs. Follow-up is to 3-month posthospital discharge. DISCUSSION: If results support feasibility of ramp-up and promising clinical outcomes, a follow-up definitive trial will be organized using a developing national platform and medication appropriateness network. Since the intervention allows a very scarce medical specialty expertise to be offered via virtual care, there is potential to improve the safety, outcomes, and cost of care widely. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04077281.

Cuff Leak Test and Airway Obstruction in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Laryngeal edema is a known complication of endotracheal intubation that may cause airway obstruction upon extubation. The only test available to predict this complication is the cuff leak test (CLT). Objectives: Given the uncertainty of the CLT's clinical utility, we conducted the COMIC (Cuff Leak Test and Airway Obstruction in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients) pilot study to examine the feasibility of undertaking a larger trial. Methods: COMIC is a multicentered, parallel-group randomized trial performed in Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Poland. We enrolled mechanically ventilated adults admitted to the intensive care unit who were deemed ready for extubation. Those allocated to the intervention arm had the results of their CLT communicated to the healthcare team, who then decided to proceed with extubation or not. In those randomized to the control arm, the CLT results were not communicated to the healthcare team and patients were extubated, regardless of the CLT result. The primary outcomes focused on feasibility. Results: One hundred patients (56 in the intervention and 44 in the control arm) were enrolled. All feasibility criteria were met, including 1) recruitment rate of 7.6 patients/month, 2) consent rate of 88.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.1-94.5%), and 3) protocol adherence of 98% (95% CI, 95-100%). There were two episodes of clinically significant stridor in the intervention group and four patients who required reintubation in each group. Conclusions: The results of the COMIC pilot trial support the feasibility of a larger trial to determine the effect of the CLT on reintubation and clinically important stridor.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03372707).

Dexmedetomidine vs other sedatives in critically ill mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Dexmedetomidine is an alternative sedative that may achieve lighter sedation, reduce delirium, and provide analgesia. Our objective was to perform a comprehensive systematic review summarizing the large body of evidence, determining if dexmedetomidine reduces delirium compared to conventional sedatives. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021. Independent pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine to other sedatives for mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The results were reported as relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 77 randomized trials (n = 11,997) were included. Compared to other sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.81; moderate certainty), the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 1.8 h, 95% CI - 2.89 to - 0.71; low certainty), and ICU length of stay (MD - 0.32 days, 95% CI - 0.42 to - 0.22; low certainty). Dexmedetomidine use increased the risk of bradycardia (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.13; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; low certainty). In mechanically ventilated adults, the use of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives, resulted in a lower risk of delirium, and a modest reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, but increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension.

Multistudy Research Operations in the ICU: An Interprofessional Pandemic-Informed Approach.

Proliferation of COVID-19 research underscored the need for improved awareness among investigators, research staff and bedside clinicians of the operational details of clinical studies. The objective was to describe the genesis, goals, participation, procedures, and outcomes of two research operations committees in an academic ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Two-phase, single-center multistudy cohort. SETTING: University-affiliated ICU in Hamilton, ON, Canada. PATIENTS: Adult patients in the ICU, medical stepdown unit, or COVID-19 ward. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: An interprofessional COVID Collaborative was convened at the pandemic onset within our department, to proactively coordinate studies, help navigate multiple authentic consent encounters by different research staff, and determine which studies would be suitable for coenrollment. From March 2020 to May 2021, five non-COVID trials continued, two were paused then restarted, and five were launched. Over 15 months, 161 patients were involved in 215 trial enrollments, 110 (51.1%) of which were into a COVID treatment trial. The overall informed consent rate (proportion agreed of those eligible and approached including a priori and deferred consent models) was 83% (215/259). The informed consent rate was lower for COVID-19 trials (110/142, 77.5%) than other trials (105/117, 89.7%; p = 0.01). Patients with COVID-19 were significantly more likely to be coenrolled in two or more studies (29/77, 37.7%) compared with other patients (13/84, 15.5%; p = 0.002). Review items for each new study were collated, refined, and evolved into a modifiable checklist template to set up each study for success. The COVID Collaborative expanded to a more formal Department of Critical Care Research Operations Committee in June 2021, supporting sustainable research operations during and beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Structured coordination and increased communication about research operations among diverse research stakeholders cultivated a sense of shared purpose and enhanced the integrity of clinical research operations.

The impact of recency and adequacy of historical information on sepsis predictions using machine learning.

Sepsis is a major public and global health concern. Every hour of delay in detecting sepsis significantly increases the risk of death, highlighting the importance of accurately predicting sepsis in a timely manner. A growing body of literature has examined developing new or improving the existing machine learning (ML) approaches for timely and accurate predictions of sepsis. This study contributes to this literature by providing clear insights regarding the role of the recency and adequacy of historical information in predicting sepsis using ML. To this end, we implemented a deep learning model using a bidirectional long short-term memory (BiLSTM) algorithm and compared it with six other ML algorithms based on numerous combinations of the prediction horizons (to capture information recency) and observation windows (to capture information adequacy) using different measures of predictive performance. Our results indicated that the BiLSTM algorithm outperforms all other ML algorithms and provides a great separability of the predicted risk of sepsis among septic versus non-septic patients. Moreover, decreasing the prediction horizon (in favor of information recency) always boosts the predictive performance; however, the impact of expanding the observation window (in favor of information adequacy) depends on the prediction horizon and the purpose of prediction. More specifically, when the prediction is responsive to the positive label (i.e., Sepsis), increasing historical data improves the predictive performance when the prediction horizon is short-moderate.

Metastatic renal cell cancer treatments: an indirect comparison meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) has advanced dramatically with understanding of the pathogenesis of the disease. New treatment options may provide improved progression-free survival (PFS). We aimed to determine the relative effectiveness of new therapies in this field. METHODS: We conducted comprehensive searches of 11 electronic databases from inception to April 2008. We included randomized trials (RCTs) that evaluated bevacizumab, sorafenib, and sunitinib. Two reviewers independently extracted data, in duplicate. Our primary outcome was investigator-assessed PFS. We performed random-effects meta-analysis with a mixed treatment comparison analysis. RESULTS: We included 3 bevacizumab (2 of bevacizumab plus interferon-a [IFN-a]), 2 sorafenib, 1 sunitinib, and 1 temsirolimus trials (total n = 3,957). All interventions offer advantages for PFS. Using indirect comparisons with interferon-alpha as the common comparator, we found that sunitinib was superior to both sorafenib (HR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.38-0.86, P = < 0.001) and bevacizumab + IFN-a (HR 0.75, 95% CI, 0.60-0.93, P = 0.001). Sorafenib was not statistically different from bevacizumab +IFN-a in this same indirect comparison analysis (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.52-1.13, P = 0.23). Using placebo as the similar comparator, we were unable to display a significant difference between sorafenib and bevacizumab alone (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.58-1.12, P = 0.23). Temsirolimus provided significant PFS in patients with poor prognosis (HR 0.69, 95% CI, 0.57-0.85). CONCLUSION: New interventions for mRCC offer a favourable PFS for mRCC compared to interferon-alpha and placebo.

Antifungal treatment for invasive Candida infections: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Invasive fungal infections are a major cause of mortality among patients at risk. Treatment guidelines vary on optimal treatment strategies. We aimed to determine the effects of different antifungal therapies on global response rates, mortality and safety. METHODS: We searched independently and in duplicate 10 electronic databases from inception to May 2009. We selected any randomized trial assessing established antifungal therapies for confirmed cases of invasive candidiasis among predominantly adult populations. We performed a meta-analysis and then conducted a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison to differentiate treatment effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses included dosage forms of amphotericin B and fluconazole compared to other azoles. RESULTS: Our analysis included 11 studies enrolling a total of 965 patients. For our primary analysis of global response rates, we pooled 7 trials comparing azoles to amphotericin B, Relative Risk [RR] 0.87 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.78-0.96, P = 0.007, I2 = 43%, P = 0.09. We also pooled 2 trials of echinocandins versus amphotericin B and found a pooled RR of 1.10 (95% CI, 0.99-1.23, P = 0.08). One study compared anidulafungin to fluconazole and yielded a RR of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.06-1.51) in favor of anidulafungin. We pooled 7 trials assessing azoles versus amphotericin B for all-cause mortality, resulting in a pooled RR of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.74-1.05, P = 0.17, I2 = 0%, P = 0.96). Echinocandins versus amphotericin B (2 trials) for all-cause mortality resulted in a pooled RR of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.84-1.20, P = 0.93). Anidulafungin versus fluconazole resulted in a RR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.48-1.10, P = 0.34). Our mixed treatment comparison analysis found similar within-class effects across all interventions. Adverse event profiles differed, with amphotericin B exhibiting larger adverse event effects. CONCLUSION: Treatment options appear to offer preferential effects on response rates and mortality. When mycologic data are available, therapy should be tailored.

Prescribing competency assessment for Canadian medical students: a pilot evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The knowledge and ability to prescribe safely and effectively is a core competency for every graduating medical student. Our previous research suggested concerns about medical student prescribing abilities, and interest in a standardized assessment process. METHODS: A multi-year cross-sectional study evaluating the feasibility, acceptability, and discriminative ability of an online prescribing competency assessment for final year Canadian medical students was conducted. Students at nine sites of four Ontario medical schools were invited to participate in an online one-hour exam of eight domains related to prescribing safely. Student feedback on perceived fairness, clarity, and ease of use formed the primary outcome. Exam performance and parity between schools were the secondary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 714 students completed the assessment during spring final review courses between 2016 and 2018. Student feedback was more favourable than not for appropriateness of content (53.5% agreement vs 18.3% disagreement), clarity of questions (65.5% agreement vs 11.6% disagreement), question layout and presentation (70.8% agreement vs 12.2% disagreement), and ease of use of online interface (67.1% agreement vs 13.6% disagreement). Few (23.6% believed their course work had prepared them for the assessment. Mean total exam score was 70.0% overall (SD 10.4%), with 47.6% scoring at or above the pass threshold of 70%.Conclusion: Our prescribing competency assessment proved feasible, acceptable, and discriminative, and indicated a need for better medical school training to improve prescribing competency. Further evaluation in a larger sample of medical schools is warranted.

Cuff Leak Test and Airway Obstruction in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients (COMIC): a pilot randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation are lifesaving interventions that are commonly performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). Laryngeal oedema is a known complication of intubation that may cause airway obstruction in a patient on extubation. To date, the only test available to predict this complication is the cuff leak test (CLT); however, its diagnostic accuracy and utility remains uncertain. Herein, we report the protocol for the CuffLeak and AirwayObstruction in MechanicallyVentilated ICU Patients (COMIC) pilottrial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a multicentred, pragmatic, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT). We will enrol 100 mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU who are deemed ready for extubation. We will exclude patients at a high risk of laryngeal oedema. All enrolled patients will have a CLT done before extubation. In the intervention arm, the results of the CLT will be communicated to the bedside physician, and decision to extubate will be left to the treating team. In the control arm, respiratory therapist will not communicate the results of the CLT to the treating physician, and the patient will be extubated regardless of the CLT result. Randomisation will be done in a 1:1 allocation ratio, stratified by size of the endotracheal tube and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation.Although we will examine all clinical outcomes relevant for the future COMIC RCT, the primary outcomes of the COMIC pilottrial will be feasibility outcomes including: consent rate, recruitment rate and protocol adherence. Clinical outcomes include postextubation stridor, reintubation, emergency surgical airway, ICU mortality, in hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay in days. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University Institutional Review Board and Bioethical Commission of the Jagiellonian University approved this study. The trial results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03372707.

Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PURPOSE: Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is commonly prescribed in the intensive care unit. However, data from systematic reviews and conventional meta-analyses are limited by imprecision and restricted to direct comparisons. We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to examine the safety and efficacy of drugs available for SUP in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2017 for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and sucralfate for SUP in critically ill patients. No date or language restrictions were applied. Data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 96 potentially eligible studies, we included 57 trials enrolling 7293 patients. The results showed that PPIs are probably more effective for preventing clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB) than H2RAs [odds ratio (OR) 0.38; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.20, 0.73], sucralfate (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13, 0.69), and placebo (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10, 0.60) (all moderate quality evidence). There were no convincing differences among H2RA, sucralfate, and placebo. PPIs probably increase the risk of developing pneumonia compared with H2RAs (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.96, 1.68), sucralfate (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.20, 2.27), and placebo (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.95, 2.42) (all moderate quality). Mortality is probably similar across interventions (moderate quality). Estimates of baseline risks of bleeding varied significantly across studies, and only one study reported on Clostridium difficile infection. Definitions of pneumonia varied considerably. Most studies on sucralfate predate pneumonia prevention strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide moderate quality evidence that PPIs are the most effective agents in preventing CIB, but they may increase the risk of pneumonia. The balance of benefits and harms leaves the routine use of SUP open to question.

Correction to: Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Owing to an oversight by the authors, all the figures in the last column of Table 2 (upper section: Number needed to treat; lower section: Number needed to harm) in this article were given without the final digit 0 and are thus 10 times too small.